Comparison of Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse and Tone Burst Stimulation in Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Acute Peripheral Vestibular System Pathologies

Aydin, Berna Deniz; Erbek, Seyra

doi:10.5152/iao.2023.21560

Cited by 3 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In most studies, shorter P1 and N1 latency was obtained with the CHIRP stimulus in the cVEMP test. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Besides, Walther and Cebulla state that they found longer P1 and N1 latency with CHIRP stimulus. 22 Wang et al, Moinudeen et al, and Walther and Cebulla state that CHIRP stimuli produce higher amplitude values in the cVEMP test.…”

Section: Cvemps Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…CHIRP stimuli were compared with a 500 Hz tone burst. Bas [16][17][18]24,25 On the other hand, Walther and Cebulla indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in N1 and P1 latencies. 22 In all studies, higher N1-P1 wave amplitude values were reported in oVEMP.…”

Section: Ocular Vemp Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The mean of normalized amplitude values was 1.42 µV with CHIRP stimuli. [16][17][18] CHIRP stimuli were compared with 500 Hz tone burst and tone pip in the literature. In most studies, shorter P1 and N1 latency was obtained with the CHIRP stimulus in the cVEMP test.…”

Section: Cvemps Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15,22,23 19,20 Ocal et al, and Aydın and Erbek stated that there was no statistically significant difference between CHIRP and tone burst stimuli findings. 18,21 There is only one study in the literature reporting cVEMP threshold values. 18 They reported statistically significant lower cVEMP threshold values with CHIRP stimulus in healthy participants.…”

Section: Cvemps Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18,21 There is only one study in the literature reporting cVEMP threshold values. 18 They reported statistically significant lower cVEMP threshold values with CHIRP stimulus in healthy participants.…”

Section: Cvemps Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials with Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse Stimuli: A Literature Review

KUNTMAN,

PARABAKAN POLAT

2024

KBB ve BBC Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Cvemps Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Ocular Vemp Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Cvemps Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cvemps Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cvemps Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials with Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse Stimuli: A Literature Review

KUNTMAN,

PARABAKAN POLAT

2024

KBB ve BBC Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) findings in adults with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL): comparisons between 500 Hz tone burst and narrowband CE-Chirp stimuli

Zakaria,

Salim,

Abdul Wahat

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a growing interest in studying the usefulness of chirp stimuli in recording cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) waveforms. Nevertheless, the study outcomes are debatable and require verification. In view of this, the aim of the present study was to compare cVEMP results when elicited by 500 Hz tone burst and narrowband (NB) CE-Chirp stimuli in adults with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Fifty adults with bilateral SNHL (aged 20–65 years) underwent the cVEMP testing based on the established protocol. The 500 Hz tone burst and NB CE-Chirp (centred at 500 Hz) stimuli were presented to each ear at an intensity level of 120.5 dB peSPL. P1 latency, N1 latency, and P1–N1 amplitude values were analysed accordingly. The NB CE-Chirp stimulus produced significantly shorter P1 and N1 latencies (p < 0.001) with large effect sizes (d > 0.80). In contrast, both stimuli elicited cVEMP responses with P1–N1 amplitude values that were not statistically different from one another (p = 0.157, d = 0.15). Additionally, age and hearing level were found to be significantly correlated (r = 0.56, p < 0.001), as were age and cVEMP amplitude for each stimulus (p < 0.001). To conclude, since both stimuli were presented at an equivalent intensity level (in dB peSPL), the shorter P1 and N1 latencies of cVEMP produced by the NB CE-Chirp stimulus (centred at 500 Hz) were unlikely due to enhanced saccular stimulation. Another more sensible reason is the temporal adjustment of the chirp stimulus.

show abstract

A meta-analysis comparing the performance of narrowband CE-Chirp and 500 Hz tone burst stimuli in recording cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP)

Zakaria,

Abdallatif,

Wan Mohamad

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to contradictory outcomes in the literature, the aim of this meta-analysis is to verify whether the narrowband (NB) CE-Chirp stimulus (centred at 500 Hz) would produce more robust cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) responses relative to the conventional 500 Hz tone burst. The literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and the terms used were “vestibular evoked myogenic potential” and “chirp”. The cVEMP parameters to be analysed were P1 latency, N1 latency, and P1–N1 amplitude. A total of 59 potential articles were obtained from the database search. Eventually, five articles were found to be eligible for the meta-analysis (with n = 222). As found, P1 and N1 latencies of cVEMP were significantly shorter for the chirp stimulus (p < 0.001), with substantially large effect sizes. On the other hand, P1–N1 amplitude values were found to be not statistically different between the two stimuli (p = 0.189), with a small effect size. It appears that there is no indication to support the superiority of the NB CE-Chirp stimulus (centred at 500 Hz) in the cVEMP testing (relative to the conventional 500 Hz tone burst). In particular, both stimuli produce comparable P1–N1 amplitude values. Even though P1 and N1 latencies are statistically shorter for the chirp stimulus, this may not reflect that it should be the preferred stimulus for recording cVEMP responses (and the reasons for this are discussed accordingly).

show abstract

Comparison of Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse and Tone Burst Stimulation in Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Acute Peripheral Vestibular System Pathologies

Cited by 3 publications

References 23 publications

Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials with Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse Stimuli: A Literature Review

Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials with Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse Stimuli: A Literature Review

Cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) findings in adults with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL): comparisons between 500 Hz tone burst and narrowband CE-Chirp stimuli

A meta-analysis comparing the performance of narrowband CE-Chirp and 500 Hz tone burst stimuli in recording cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About